Monday's Constitutional Talk by Thom

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
CelticStriker's picture

Aloha, all,

I truly enjoyed last night's intro by Thom concerning the US Constitution.  It was knowledgeable and until he mentioned the "unelected Justices," pretty balanced. 

My issue is this, and maybe elucidation can be given here to me: Both sides have used the federal court route to fight laws that legislatures nr Congress have passed.  It's usually one of the first things you hear from opponents of this or that.  "Yes, it passed.  But, we'll prevail in the Supreme court."  How any times have you heard that?

Yeah, Marbury v Madison was bad.  Heck, Roe v Wade was as tortured a route of judicial logic as we may see in our lifetimes.  To me, it doen't matter if the decision was "just" or "right."  What was the Constirutional basis for the decision?  I can live with something that is at least logical, even if it is  something with which I don't agree.  The point is that the me Supreme Court  "made" law and that is that. I thought that was the duty of the legislative branch

Both sides have profited from "judicial review."



Darrylpix's picture
I'm fairly sure its the duty

I'm fairly sure its the duty of the U.S. Supreme Court to properly interpret the U.S. Constitution when a case warrents it. But where and when does the U.S. Supreme Court bend or actively change the laws of the Constitution? Where is the line between merely interpret vs. twist or change? That's what I can't figure out.

The Supreme Court might stop a health care law passed and signed into law and say it is unconstitutional to attempt to compel individuals to buy health insurance by assessing a tax if they don't. That doesn't seem any more unconsitutional than any other Federal tax. Perhaps this is twisting the constitution and crosses the line?

CelticStriker's picture
I have watched subsequent

I have watched subsequent shows and am amazed to see that Thom and Roberft Bork, of all people, are of a like mind when it comes to Constitutional issues.  Both are originalists. 

Now, this is NOT a liberal vs conservative rant.  But to find two people so opposed in many thnigs yet thinking alike on that matter is, to me, astounding.